DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: US20040264707 Yang et al. December 30, 2004
D2: JP2004295781 KASANO et al. October 21, 2004
D3: US20150110333 NORRIS April 23, 2015
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claims 1, 15, and 20, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a system for directional communication (Title), the system comprising: an ultrasonic beamforming (¶ 0016) device configured to transmit an ultrasonic carrier wave (Abstract); and a processor (49) communicatively coupled (Fig. 4) with the ultrasonic beamforming device (42), wherein the processor is configured to: obtain inputs from a detection unit (48) located in a geographical area; detect a presence of an object (¶ 0013) in the geographical area based on the inputs; determine an object location (¶ 0013) in the geographical area based on the inputs responsive to detecting the presence; determine an optimum sound frequency to modulate (¶ 0016) the ultrasonic carrier wave responsive to detecting the presence; and cause the ultrasonic beamforming device to transmit the ultrasonic carrier wave modulated at the optimum sound frequency towards the object location (¶ 0016).
With regards to claims 2 and 16, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of the processor is further configured to: define a target zone (¶ 0140) in the geographical area (¶ 0005) comprising the object location; and cause the ultrasonic beamforming device to transmit the ultrasonic carrier wave modulated at the optimum sound frequency in the target zone responsive to defining the target zone.
With regards to claims 3 and 17, the D1 reference discloses the target zone excludes any other object exterior (Fig. 1) to the target zone (¶¶ 0014, 0131).
With regards to claim 11, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a camera (¶¶ 0013, 0134, 0140).
With regards to claim 12, the D1 reference discloses communicating to passengers passing by billboards (¶ 0010).
With regards to claim 14, the D1 reference discloses the processor is further configured to oscillate (scanning) the ultrasonic beamforming device in multiple directions to cause reflection (¶ 0005) of the ultrasonic carrier wave from one or more surfaces present in the geographical area (¶ 0149).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-8, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14-17, and 20 above, and further in combination with D2.
The difference between the D1 reference and claims 4 and 18 is that the claim recites determining an object type. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to determine an object type (see ¶ 0016). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to determine an object type as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to select an intruder warning signal to activate the intruder notification only when an intruder is detected (see D2: ¶ 0016).
With regards to claims 5 and 10, the D2 reference discloses the object type is one of a known person, an unknown person, a pet animal or an animal different from the pet animal (¶ 0016: image recognition).
With regards to claims 6 and 19, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of sound frequency is in a hearing frequency range of the object type (see ¶ 0149).
With regards to claim 7, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of alarm for animals (¶ 0149) and CD player sound for listeners (¶ 0136).
With regards to claim 8, the D2 reference discloses to activate the intruder notification only when the intruder is determined (¶ 0016).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14-17, and 20 above, and further in combination with D3.
Claim 9 additionally recites the utilization of a pointer device configured to emit light towards the object. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize a pointer (see ¶¶ 0102-0103). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 references to utilize a pointer device configured to emit light towards the object as motivated by the D3 reference to assist the D1 reference to aim its ultrasonic device (see ¶¶ 0102-0103).
Claim 13 additionally recites the utilization of a HyperSonic™ speaker. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize a HyperSonic™ speaker (see ¶¶ 0025, 0026, 0089, 0102). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 references to utilize a HyperSonic™ speaker as motivated by the D3 reference to assist the D1 reference to emit ultrasonic carrier audio signals
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached on 571-270-5227.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645